It has been said that if you’re not a socialist at 20, you have no heart, and if you’re a socialist at 40, you have no head.

Here’s something that’s true. As worthy as are the president’s domestic and economic goals, there is no logical way to pay for them. Taxing the “rich” more aggressively won’t close the deficit, nor will any other of the president’s economic schemes.

The United States simply cannot afford what it wants to have. Trillion-dollar deficits into eternity cannot continue forever; Like Greece, at some point, we won’t be able to sell enough bonds to repay those that are maturing, let alone partially fund the government’s redistributive programs.

Trillion-dollar deficits seem to not affect our lives today, but at some point in the not-too-distant future, when investors won’t buy our bonds because they won’t like the credit risk, life in the United States will more resemble Southern Europe than the country that we know today.

Deferring pleasure is a drag, but sometimes it must be done to avoid far worse pain.

A vote for President Obama is a vote for reckless economics.

Mike Norton
UI alumnus

Elect Stutsman and Schwab

The 2010 census brought legislative redistricting because of the residential growth in our community. I have been honored to serve Coralville, western Iowa City, Penn Township, North Liberty, and Tiffin.

This growth has created a new Iowa House District (77) for North Liberty and Tiffin. This gives voters an opportunity to elect Sally Stutsman to the Iowa House of Representatives. We also have an opportunity to elect Dick Schwab for the newly configured House District 73, which serves the northern Johnson County (Solon) area and Cedar County.

Politics aside, both Stutsman and Schwab are hard workers, and even more importantly, they will listen to you. Please support Stutsman and Schwab for Iowa House.

Dave and Lynette Jacoby
Coralville

Religion in politics

Does religion play a role in our politics? Religiously informed beliefs have influenced American politics from the founding of the nation. However, in recent years, the idea to keep the influence of religious belief out of the public sphere has become quite popular.

There is a major flaw with this idea. Stephen L. Carter writes:

“Efforts to craft a public square from which religious conversation is absent, no matter how thoughtfully worked out, will always in the end say to those of organized religion that they alone, unlike everybody else, must enter public dialogue only after leaving behind that part of themselves that they consider the most vital.”

Why is this so? Consider what religion ultimately is. Religion “is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their lives doing” (Keller, p. 15).

It may not be an organized religion but a “master narrative,” a view about the meaning of life and how it should be lived. Some might call this a worldview. But, everyone, even the most secular pragmatist, has these ultimate beliefs that are assumptions of faith and that inform and guide their lives.

In essence, people who call for the exclusion of religion from politics, no matter how well intended, are actually saying that it is OK for them to come to the political table informed by their particular brand of religious views, but I am not allowed to come with mine.